Ex-leader of Latrobe-based union accused of theft

Nobama wrote:

obama's unionist demoncrap plan for happiness: 1)live beyond your means; 2)steal to continue living beyond your means; don't pay back the money you stole to continue living beyond your means.

That's how it works, when you come from welfare!

I used to think unions were all warm and fuzzy. And then I moved here. Watching 11 Union workers stand around smoking cigarettes on the side of the road while 2 of their Union cohorts pushes a shovel around really bothers me. This is what Unions do: they may protect workers, but at everyone else's expense. And I say "may" protect workers. In states without unions, they seem to be just as happy, protected, well-paid and benefitted as in states where organized labor is leaching the taxpayer dry.

Like I said, I understand what you're saying. You're just too closed-minded to understand what I'm saying.

Company man wrote:

I start a business to make money for me. I pay a decent wage and follow all labor laws. Employees form a union demand more money and more benefits than what they agreed to work for when I hired them. I inform them that I cannot afford to meet all their demands because it cuts in to my profits, from my company that I started to make me money. They threaten to strike, I inform them I will shut the plant down and move to another state were people will gladly work for what they are currently receiving in wages and benefits. They go on strike and I close the plant and move it. The union members blame it on corporate greed! I blame it on union greed! A company is in business to make money, not to break even.

The mechanics and sequence of your scenario are all logical and difficult to dispute, save for one:

"I pay a decent wage and follow all labor laws. Employees form a union demand more money and more benefits than what they agreed to work for when I hired them."

What you consider "decent" is decided by whom? You.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is more than minimum wage, but how much more? Following labor laws isn’t up for discussion or dispute...you have to follow them, they're laws.

How long have you had your employees? 1...3...5...10 years? Isn't it logical that employees that were good enough to stay that long should get more than when they were hired? Ever hear of cost of living and inflation?

If you are the only one in your company that sets the wages and working conditions and the rest of the people feel they need a union, then I think the problem is/was with you. Do you apply a participative management style that opens the books for employees to see and understand the financials of the company, or is it you and you alone who are privy to such information.

Do you hold their wages in place while you show up looking/acting like a modern Andrew Carnegie?

All I'm saying is that if your employees feel they need a union to get a fair share, then your management style is the problem. After all, you were the one who hired them. You can't blame it on inheriting a workforce that was already in place.

If you were as good as you think you are...then the employees would not want a union. Why would they want to pay dues, and have to put up with another boss, if they're financial and social needs were being met?

SunsFanAZ wrote:

I used to think unions were all warm and fuzzy. And then I moved here. Watching 11 Union workers stand around smoking cigarettes on the side of the road while 2 of their Union cohorts pushes a shovel around really bothers me. This is what Unions do: they may protect workers, but at everyone else's expense. And I say "may" protect workers. In states without unions, they seem to be just as happy, protected, well-paid and benefitted as in states where organized labor is leaching the taxpayer dry.
Like I said, I understand what you're saying. You're just too closed-minded to understand what I'm saying.

Unions exist in all areas; government, professional, and labor to name a few. You described an unsavory and unproductive aspect of unions, which I feel is where the union leadership should step in to educate and properly motivate their membership.

An hourly worker has a choice of which way to go to keep a job and have some control of the work environment/wages/and benefits. He/she can belong to a collective bargaining unit (union) that negotiates contracts or he/she can kiss-ass.

It is really that basic.

Just clarifying the earleir posts under FYI. I used that screen name for the Derry child abuser thread and it stuck.
It was really me...Redneck.

It's Bush's fault. Just another union scumb ag exposed for what they are, common thieves.

FYI wrote:

<quoted text>
Unions exist in all areas; government, professional, and labor to name a few. You described an unsavory and unproductive aspect of unions, which I feel is where the union leadership should step in to educate and properly motivate their membership.

But they don't because we live in a land where everyone, especially union-types, are expecting handouts and have an overwhelming sense of entitlement.

The union leadership isn't going to step in because their cushy jobs and perks are at stake. And the Union members aren't going to do anything about it because they're not going to drop their pay or benefits. Its all about greed.

I'll admit when labor was fighting for a 60, 50 and eventually 40 hour work week, they weren't being greedy. But that was a long, long time ago.

FYI wrote:

He/she can belong to a collective bargaining unit (union) that negotiates contracts or he/she can kiss-ass.
It is really that basic.

See, your sense of entitlement is showing here. What you can "kissing ass", most Americans consider honest work.

Get that chip off your shoulder, slob. You're just looking for handouts. You want to put in half the work for three times the pay. You're the kind of lowlife that makes most Americans sick with sense of entitlement.

SunsFanAZ wrote:

<quoted text>
But they don't because we live in a land where everyone, especially union-types, are expecting handouts and have an overwhelming sense of entitlement.
The union leadership isn't going to step in because their cushy jobs and perks are at stake. And the Union members aren't going to do anything about it because they're not going to drop their pay or benefits. Its all about greed.
I'll admit when labor was fighting for a 60, 50 and eventually 40 hour work week, they weren't being greedy. But that was a long, long time ago.
<quoted text>
See, your sense of entitlement is showing here. What you can "kissing ass", most Americans consider honest work.
Get that chip off your shoulder, slob. You're just looking for handouts. You want to put in half the work for three times the pay. You're the kind of lowlife that makes most Americans sick with sense of entitlement.

You can call a living wage a handout, and I can call employing labor with no union protection exploitation. It's just semantics sonny. Potatoe,potuttoe...it's all basic getting a piece of the pie.

Your type thinks the weathiest deserve all the billions they got through whatever means (sweat shops around the world, slavery, political payoffs) and you'll line up to kiss their ass as they strut by you. But woe to the lowly hourly worker who gets a little leverage for bargaining for a few more crumbs. That's considered an entitlement in your eyes. Corporate welfare is more of a drain and societal bane than entitlements for hourly workers.

You can call me anyhing you like, but one thing I never had to do to keep a job was kiss ass. As said before...it's known as dignity.

In case you haven't noticed there isn't a whole lot of jobs out there. I also have dignity. But if I have to kiss a little ass to keep my job which puts a roof over my head, food on the table and clothes on my back then I will forfiet a little dignity. That to me is less demeaning than loosing my job, my house, my car and not being able to feed and clothe my family. Last time I looked in the want ads there weren't a lot of jobs starting at $31.00 an hour with full benefits. So I will swallow a little pride now and then and kiss a little ass if I have too.

Company man wrote:

In case you haven't noticed there isn't a whole lot of jobs out there. I also have dignity. But if I have to kiss a little ass to keep my job which puts a roof over my head, food on the table and clothes on my back then I will forfiet a little dignity. That to me is less demeaning than loosing my job, my house, my car and not being able to feed and clothe my family. Last time I looked in the want ads there weren't a lot of jobs starting at $31.00 an hour with full benefits. So I will swallow a little pride now and then and kiss a little ass if I have too.

Those weren't the parameters that you put forth in your previous post about being a company owner with employees.

The shortage of jobs in this country is a related but different bucket of worms. While your previous scenario dealt with the internal workings of a company in relation to employees, this issue deals with the politics around globalization. Globalization was the answer for big corporations to do what you wanted to do with your company..bring the standard of living down to third world levels for Americans.

Unfortunately for American workers it has succeeded as you pointed out in this post. Americans are now given the choice of working in third world conditions and wage scales or not provide for their families at all. If it weren't for extended unemployment benefits, this country might do what it should do...explode into an active form of protest rather than the imbecilic and lame exercise in futility now used...voting for the "other" party.

Company man wrote:

In case you haven't noticed there isn't a whole lot of jobs out there. I also have dignity. But if I have to kiss a little ass to keep my job which puts a roof over my head, food on the table and clothes on my back then I will forfiet a little dignity. That to me is less demeaning than loosing my job, my house, my car and not being able to feed and clothe my family. Last time I looked in the want ads there weren't a lot of jobs starting at $31.00 an hour with full benefits. So I will swallow a little pride now and then and kiss a little ass if I have too.

Where is jobs starting at $31.00 an hour around here?

What I am trying to show you is that Unions are good only to an extent. Such as fighting for safe and clean working conditions. Keeping benefits in place that you were given when you were hired. Getting you a raise every year to keep up with the rise in the cost of living. Protecting you from general mistreatment. What I don't agree with is when unions protect individuals that should be fired.Fellow union brothers and sisters who show up for work late and are drunk or high.Ones that steal from the company and ones who don't do any work because they have time in. Also the entitlement that some unions feel they have a right too. If I make a profit of a million dollars there are union members who believe that I should give them some of that money. Why? profit sharing wasn't agreed to when I hired you. I started the company to make money for me, it was my idea and my financing. If you want to make money come up with your own idea and start your own business. I went two years with out a raise. But at least I still had a job! There aren't many jobs out there that pay what a lot of union members are making. All too soon union members are willing to go on strike even if the company owners are not making a profit saying stuff like "we'll shut this place down." After they are successful and the plant closes and moves to a new state, union members blame "corporate greed".How about union greed? When is enough enough?$30.00 an hour to push a broom around the shop floor, 5 weeks paid vacation, 25 paid sick days, full medical benefits, cost of living raise every year. Most people would be happy with this. Then there are the union members who read the paper and see that the company made a huge profit and they feel that now they are owed more. So as I have stated I borrowed money and put my idea in to motion to make myself wealthy so that I could build a strong company and sell it when I was ready to retire and live comfortable the rest of my life. I did not wake up one day and say "Gee I think my idea is great. I think I will borrow money and start this company and make all my employees rich. That way they can retire early and I will work until I die running this company and making everyone else rich!"

Company Man wrote:

What I am trying to show you is that Unions are good only to an extent. Such as fighting for safe and clean working conditions.

The guys who sat on strike, for Latrobe Steel, in 2008, clearly and frequently stated to me that their union did NOT care about healthy working conditions and only worked on keeping them employed, so that the union kept having its income.

More than one guy told me this, and they sat together in groups of at least three, if not in a group of five. They rotated positions, and times of day, and all the guys had the same things to tell me.

This is when the men told me about "briefcase" DEP inspections of the steel mill, where the men were told in advance to clean up their work areas, then, on the days of inspection, to NOT grind certain materials -- since there was NOT adequate ventilation and mask protections, etc.

The men explained that they were under strict orders to NOT grind certain materials when the DEP was in the factory, lest they get FIRED!

When I asked if the guys went to their union, they all laughed! and stated that their union doesn't care about their health. The union only cares about collecting their money, their dues.

Hmmmm....

It would seem to me that the union would care about health conditions of its members, but at Latrobe Steel, according to ALL THE MEN, who sat on the picket lines in 2008, that is NOT the case.

FYI wrote:

An hourly worker has a choice of which way to go to keep a job and have some control of the work environment/wages/and benefits. He/she can belong to a collective bargaining unit (union) that negotiates contracts or he/she can kiss-ass.

Why do "local" people feel that they should have one-job for their entire lives? as if they are "entitled" to one job: forever!

Employees no longer need unions: there are STATE and FEDERAL laws in place to protect safety, over-time demands, child labor, etc.

Ass-kissing is part of life, perhaps we could define "ass-kissing" in this thread as "doing the best job possible", because when an employee performs to expectations or above, well, his/er job is secure.

Moreover -- RETIREMENT BENEFITS -- are an unreasonable expectation of union employees. EVERYONE IS NO FREE to have all sorts of self-designed retirement packages, and no longer need a union to provide those.

Why is keeping the same job -- for 40-years -- what local people want? Don't people want to learn new tasks and skills and obtain advanced education? to move on to management positions or more creative positions?

Yes, not everyone wants to lead or advance or have responsibility, but why do people want to work in the same position day after day after day...

If they received education as part of their employee packages -- and MANY LARGE NATIONWIDE COMPANIES OFFER EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS -- I think that more people would act on those benefits, and move on to bigger and better "pieces of the pie".

Company Man wrote:

What I am trying to show you is that Unions are good only to an extent. Such as fighting for safe and clean working conditions. Keeping benefits in place that you were given when you were hired. Getting you a raise every year to keep up with the rise in the cost of living. Protecting you from general mistreatment. What I don't agree with is when unions protect individuals that should be fired.Fellow union brothers and sisters who show up for work late and are drunk or high.Ones that steal from the company and ones who don't do any work because they have time in.

I and I think 95% of all union members would agree with you. Unfortunately, you get some bitter with the sweet in all organizations. The legal problem that exists is that once an employee pays union dues, he/she has the right to all the representation that is available. It is sometimes like being a lawyer who has to defend a known child molester. The lawyer can't say in court...hang the bastard, even though he might want to. A union rep can't say fire the lazy bastard, even though he/she would like to. Both instances open themselves for misrepresentation and law suits.

Company Man wrote:

Also the entitlement that some unions feel they have a right too. If I make a profit of a million dollars there are union members who believe that I should give them some of that money. Why? profit sharing wasn't agreed to when I hired you. I started the company to make money for me, it was my idea and my financing. If you want to make money come up with your own idea and start your own business.

That (profit-sharing) is something that needs to be negotiated during contract talks. However, without a union there are no contract talks, no bargaining, and no means for workers to be heard without penalty.

You indeed have the right to make a profit from the company you created. But you are doing so with the help of the employees you hired. You're not doing everything that needs to be done. If you are making a great deal of profit while your employees are standing still, it's only human nature that they are going to see a moral and legal right to ask for more also. The intelligent manager gets ahead of this by making more rewards available before a union is asked to come in. Allow the employees access to the books, show them what the financial statements provide, where the money is going, and offer incentives based on productivity.

But if you have the attitude that you can make millions and deny employees the chance to be a part of it, you are living in a fantasy land. People just do not react that way. You can either include them in the profit gains under your terms, or you can have a union. The choice is yours. If you have nothing to hide, open the books and your wallet. If you want to keep everything for yourself with an it's all mine, take it or leave it, and don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out attitude...a union will be in your future.

Company Man wrote:

I went two years with out a raise. But at least I still had a job! There aren't many jobs out there that pay what a lot of union members are making. All too soon union members are willing to go on strike even if the company owners are not making a profit saying stuff like "we'll shut this place down." After they are successful and the plant closes and moves to a new state, union members blame "corporate greed".How about union greed? When is enough enough?$30.00 an hour to push a broom around the shop floor, 5 weeks paid vacation, 25 paid sick days, full medical benefits, cost of living raise every year. Most people would be happy with this.

I agree, most would be happy with that today. But where does one find that today? And did all those wonderful things come about by an overly generous company owner, or were they won and earned by collective bargaining and doing the agreed contracted work...while the company still made a profit?

Company Man wrote:

Then there are the union members who read the paper and see that the company made a huge profit and they feel that now they are owed more. So as I have stated I borrowed money and put my idea in to motion to make myself wealthy so that I could build a strong company and sell it when I was ready to retire and live comfortable the rest of my life. I did not wake up one day and say "Gee I think my idea is great. I think I will borrow money and start this company and make all my employees rich. That way they can retire early and I will work until I die running this company and making everyone else rich!"

The question then becomes how soon do you want to sell and retire and how much of that wealth is yours and yours alone. Did you tell this to the people when you hired them? Did you tell them that no matter how hard they work and how much profit they help the company make, that they are "entitled" to only what you want to give, to whom you want to give it, and when they will get to work or be replaced?

If you have nothing to hid, then educate your employees and make all the information known to them. You can be a servant manager to your employees and get everyone to pull together for a common goal, or you can be a taskmaster that wants to run a plantation. Not too many people today willing to accept Yaazzz Masssa as the appropriate response to everything said by the boss.

NOTE: This should have shown up prior to the previous post:

Company Man wrote:

What I am trying to show you is that Unions are good only to an extent. Such as fighting for safe and clean working conditions. Keeping benefits in place that you were given when you were hired. Getting you a raise every year to keep up with the rise in the cost of living. Protecting you from general mistreatment. What I don't agree with is when unions protect individuals that should be fired.Fellow union brothers and sisters who show up for work late and are drunk or high.Ones that steal from the company and ones who don't do any work because they have time in.

I and I think 95% of all union members would agree with you. Unfortunately, you get some bitter with the sweet in all organizations. The legal problem that exists is that once an employee pays union dues, he/she has the right to all the representation that is available. It is sometimes like being a lawyer who has to defend a known child molester. The lawyer can't say in court...hang the bastard, even though he might want to. A union rep can't say fire the lazy bastard, even though he/she would like to. Both instances open themselves for misrepresentation and law suits.

Company Man wrote:

Also the entitlement that some unions feel they have a right too. If I make a profit of a million dollars there are union members who believe that I should give them some of that money. Why? profit sharing wasn't agreed to when I hired you. I started the company to make money for me, it was my idea and my financing. If you want to make money come up with your own idea and start your own business.

That (profit-sharing) is something that needs to be negotiated during contract talks. However, without a union there are no contract talks, no bargaining, and no means for workers to be heard without penalty.

You indeed have the right to make a profit from the company you created. But you are doing so with the help of the employees you hired. You're not doing everything that needs to be done. If you are making a great deal of profit while your employees are standing still, it's only human nature that they are going to see a moral and legal right to ask for more also. The intelligent manager gets ahead of this by making more rewards available before a union is asked to come in. Allow the employees access to the books, show them what the financial statements provide, where the money is going, and offer incentives based on productivity.

But if you have the attitude that you can make millions and deny employees the chance to be a part of it, you are living in a fantasy land. People just do not react that way. You can either include them in the profit gains under your terms, or you can have a union. The choice is yours. If you have nothing to hide, open the books and your wallet. If you want to keep everything for yourself with an it's all mine, take it or leave it, and don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out attitude...a union will be in your future.

P.S. I usually charge for this advice.

Company Man wrote:

What I am trying to show you is that Unions are good only to an extent. Such as fighting for safe and clean working conditions. Keeping benefits in place that you were given when you were hired. Getting you a raise every year to keep up with the rise in the cost of living. Protecting you from general mistreatment. What I don't agree with is when unions protect individuals that should be fired.Fellow union brothers and sisters who show up for work late and are drunk or high.Ones that steal from the company and ones who don't do any work because they have time in. Also the entitlement that some unions feel they have a right too. If I make a profit of a million dollars there are union members who believe that I should give them some of that money. Why? profit sharing wasn't agreed to when I hired you. I started the company to make money for me, it was my idea and my financing. If you want to make money come up with your own idea and start your own business. I went two years with out a raise. But at least I still had a job! There aren't many jobs out there that pay what a lot of union members are making. All too soon union members are willing to go on strike even if the company owners are not making a profit saying stuff like "we'll shut this place down." After they are successful and the plant closes and moves to a new state, union members blame "corporate greed".How about union greed? When is enough enough?$30.00 an hour to push a broom around the shop floor, 5 weeks paid vacation, 25 paid sick days, full medical benefits, cost of living raise every year. Most people would be happy with this. Then there are the union members who read the paper and see that the company made a huge profit and they feel that now they are owed more. So as I have stated I borrowed money and put my idea in to motion to make myself wealthy so that I could build a strong company and sell it when I was ready to retire and live comfortable the rest of my life. I did not wake up one day and say "Gee I think my idea is great. I think I will borrow money and start this company and make all my employees rich. That way they can retire early and I will work until I die running this company and making everyone else rich!"

I am now union & also worked non many years.Both have their good,& bad points which i experienced.You need a contract that is agreed upon,which both sides respects.Also I have seen workers repremanded with time off with no pay or dismissal.On the non side I have seen pets who would miss work without a call off or showed up drunk.Even though i was a junior worker,more experienced in different jobs guess who was laid off when work was slow?The owners at times had an attitude that seemed like they owned you.Everybody looks at things in their own way I guess.

5th Ward Resident wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do "local" people feel that they should have one-job for their entire lives? as if they are "entitled" to one job: forever!

The sense of entitlement from some of these babies is stifling. Redneck is a fine example: anyone who considers honest work synonimous with ass kissing is looking for a handout.

You are supposed to do your job well. This is not ass-kissing, this is called being a man (or woman). If you do your job well, you are rewarded for it. The days of child labor, 70 hour weeks and sweatshops (at least here) are over.

5th Ward Resident wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do "local" people feel that they should have one-job for their entire lives? as if they are "entitled" to one job: forever!
Employees no longer need unions: there are STATE and FEDERAL laws in place to protect safety, over-time demands, child labor, etc.
Ass-kissing is part of life, perhaps we could define "ass-kissing" in this thread as "doing the best job possible", because when an employee performs to expectations or above, well, his/er job is secure.
Moreover -- RETIREMENT BENEFITS -- are an unreasonable expectation of union employees. EVERYONE IS NO FREE to have all sorts of self-designed retirement packages, and no longer need a union to provide those.
Why is keeping the same job -- for 40-years -- what local people want? Don't people want to learn new tasks and skills and obtain advanced education? to move on to management positions or more creative positions?
Yes, not everyone wants to lead or advance or have responsibility, but why do people want to work in the same position day after day after day...
If they received education as part of their employee packages -- and MANY LARGE NATIONWIDE COMPANIES OFFER EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS -- I think that more people would act on those benefits, and move on to bigger and better "pieces of the pie".

That is a very naive opinion, especially in this area.

Those protections you spoke of do not happen unles someone blows the whistle, and then you know what hapens to whistlblowers. They too are supposed to be protected but seldom are.

You can have retirement options if you're making enough noney to begin with. This was probably a more feasible idea 30 years ago, but with the wages are right now..not feasible and certainly not guaranteed to be there as with pensions under the Guaranteed Pension Fund

Again, the education to move ahead would have been more advantageuos a generation ago. Today, it seems much of the education is to shift from one uncertain job into another one of like uncertainty. Although I feel educatuion is always a plus for personal growth, it doesn't always translate to a better job.

And the prospect of working for one company for 40 years provided a sense of security and was a very desirable thing.

It might change after this generation as we all move forward to becoming migrant workers.